| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2006 06:54:49 AM |
| Object: |
Bible Literacy in Public Schools; |
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517882/
ROUND-UP: BIBLE LITERACY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Three-hundred school districts reportedly are considering offering courses
in "bible literacy," using "The Bible and Its Influence" as its text, and
several in California, Oregon and Washington are already offering them. No
suits have yet been brought by advocates of church-state separation, but a
spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
called this the latest move to "do an end-run around the Supreme Court's
rulings on religion in the schools." Following are experts in education,
law and religion who can discuss the pros and cons of the trend:
**1. JAMES SKILLEN, president of the CENTER FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE: "Americans
United advocates public recognition only for religions that agree to keep
their 'free practice' private. That does injustice to religions whose
expression of faith includes the way they educate their children or serve
their neighbors with social services, etc. Parents should be free to choose
the schools they want, and schools should be free to decide whether to
teach only 'about' religions or to advocate one or more religions as they
see fit. Justice will be done only when governments treat all such schools
in the same way, with the same funding and legal respect, recognizing that
each one fulfills the public purpose of education."
**2. DR. DEREK DAVIS, professor at BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: "Bible literacy
courses in America's secondary public schools are a welcome development.
The court has recognized that an education devoid of information about the
role of religion in history, art, music, literature and politics is an
inferior one. It has approved public schools to develop courses that
objectively examine religion in its many functions in society. Bible
literacy courses that are objective and neutral in their approach would be
legitimate courses. The problem is sorting through these materials to
discover which ones are objective versus those that have a hidden,
sectarian agenda. The latter should be unhesitatingly rejected."
**3. ANDY NORMAN, attorney at Chicago-based MAUCK & BAKER, LLC and a member
of the Christian Legal Society: "I have published memoranda pertaining to
religious rights under the First Amendment from the following perspectives:
students; teachers and administrators; curricula, class assignments and
activities; and holiday displays and programs; and pertaining to teaching
intelligent design in the public schools. As to teaching 'the Bible and Its
Influence' in the public schools, Supreme Court precedent is clear that
such is permitted under the First Amendment if there is a legitimate,
secular purpose involved. Americans United for Separation of Church and
State is a one-issue group devoted to the promotion of atheism. They
promote an un- American agenda which is far outside of Supreme Court
precedent, current legal thought on the First Amendment religion clauses
and that of most Americans."
**4. ROBERT W. TUTTLE, professor of law at THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
LAW SCHOOL: "Like most questions of constitutional law, the answers to this
question will not come at an abstract level. Instead, the details of each
course will determine its legality. Will the curriculum be constructed in a
way that avoids making claims for the truth of one faith, or religion in
general? Will school officials have adequate systems for training teachers
in presenting the material without making those claims, and for monitoring
teachers to safeguard against violations of the restrictions?"
**6. WILLIAM PROCTOR, religious scholar, former trial lawyer and military
judge, and editor of "The HCSB Light Speed Bible," would make a great
source to discuss the Bible Literacy Project and the ongoing controversy
surrounding the incorporation of the Bible into America's public school
curriculums. As a source, he can also discuss the ramifications of using
the Bible as a teaching tool in public schools, from a constitutional and
legal standpoint; the Bible's influence on literature, art, music and
rhetoric; and why introducing the Bible into public-school curriculums is a
good thing.
**7. DR. PAUL G. IRWIN, president and CEO of the AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, is
available to discuss the value of Bible literacy courses and their history
in America and around the world. For 190 years, The American Bible Society
has been the preeminent authority on the history and teaching of the Bible.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; |
09 Feb 2006 08:40:37 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote...
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517882/
ROUND-UP: BIBLE LITERACY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Three-hundred school districts reportedly are considering offering courses
in "bible literacy," using "The Bible and Its Influence" as its text, and
several in California, Oregon and Washington are already offering them.
So how are they coming with similar courses to balance things out, like
"The Talmud and Its Influence"
"The Koran and Its Influence"
"The Vedic Text and Its Influence"
"OT III and Its Influence"
?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; |
09 Feb 2006 08:01:07 AM |
|
|
Copyright
Newswise copyrights the information and format of information on this
site. Newswise also protects the copyright of the source of each
article.
Journalists are granted permission to use the information for
background and/or as the source for an article. Other re-purposing or
redistribution of content on this site is not permitted without prior
authorization from Newswise.
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517882/
ROUND-UP: BIBLE LITERACY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Three-hundred school districts reportedly are considering offering courses
in "bible literacy," using "The Bible and Its Influence" as its text, and
several in California, Oregon and Washington are already offering them. No
suits have yet been brought by advocates of church-state separation, but a
spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
called this the latest move to "do an end-run around the Supreme Court's
rulings on religion in the schools." Following are experts in education,
law and religion who can discuss the pros and cons of the trend:
**1. JAMES SKILLEN, president of the CENTER FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE: "Americans
United advocates public recognition only for religions that agree to keep
their 'free practice' private. That does injustice to religions whose
expression of faith includes the way they educate their children or serve
their neighbors with social services, etc. Parents should be free to choo=
se
the schools they want, and schools should be free to decide whether to
teach only 'about' religions or to advocate one or more religions as they
see fit. Justice will be done only when governments treat all such schools
in the same way, with the same funding and legal respect, recognizing that
each one fulfills the public purpose of education."
**2. DR. DEREK DAVIS, professor at BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: "Bible literacy
courses in America's secondary public schools are a welcome development.
The court has recognized that an education devoid of information about the
role of religion in history, art, music, literature and politics is an
inferior one. It has approved public schools to develop courses that
objectively examine religion in its many functions in society. Bible
literacy courses that are objective and neutral in their approach would be
legitimate courses. The problem is sorting through these materials to
discover which ones are objective versus those that have a hidden,
sectarian agenda. The latter should be unhesitatingly rejected."
**3. ANDY NORMAN, attorney at Chicago-based MAUCK & BAKER, LLC and a memb=
er
of the Christian Legal Society: "I have published memoranda pertaining to
religious rights under the First Amendment from the following perspective=
s:
students; teachers and administrators; curricula, class assignments and
activities; and holiday displays and programs; and pertaining to teaching
intelligent design in the public schools. As to teaching 'the Bible and I=
ts
Influence' in the public schools, Supreme Court precedent is clear that
such is permitted under the First Amendment if there is a legitimate,
secular purpose involved. Americans United for Separation of Church and
State is a one-issue group devoted to the promotion of atheism. They
promote an un- American agenda which is far outside of Supreme Court
precedent, current legal thought on the First Amendment religion clauses
and that of most Americans."
**4. ROBERT W. TUTTLE, professor of law at THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSI=
TY
LAW SCHOOL: "Like most questions of constitutional law, the answers to th=
is
question will not come at an abstract level. Instead, the details of each
course will determine its legality. Will the curriculum be constructed in=
a
way that avoids making claims for the truth of one faith, or religion in
general? Will school officials have adequate systems for training teachers
in presenting the material without making those claims, and for monitoring
teachers to safeguard against violations of the restrictions?"
**6. WILLIAM PROCTOR, religious scholar, former trial lawyer and military
judge, and editor of "The HCSB Light Speed Bible," would make a great
source to discuss the Bible Literacy Project and the ongoing controversy
surrounding the incorporation of the Bible into America's public school
curriculums. As a source, he can also discuss the ramifications of using
the Bible as a teaching tool in public schools, from a constitutional and
legal standpoint; the Bible's influence on literature, art, music and
rhetoric; and why introducing the Bible into public-school curriculums is=
a
good thing.
**7. DR. PAUL G. IRWIN, president and CEO of the AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, =
is
available to discuss the value of Bible literacy courses and their history
in America and around the world. For 190 years, The American Bible Society
has been the preeminent authority on the history and teaching of the Bibl=
e=2E
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; |
09 Feb 2006 11:22:18 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139493667.386954.39940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Copyright
Newswise copyrights the information and format of information on this
site. Newswise also protects the copyright of the source of each
article.
Journalists are granted permission to use the information for
background and/or as the source for an article. Other re-purposing or
redistribution of content on this site is not permitted without prior
authorization from Newswise.
See 'fair use'.
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517882/
ROUND-UP: BIBLE LITERACY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Three-hundred school districts reportedly are considering offering courses
in "bible literacy," using "The Bible and Its Influence" as its text, and
several in California, Oregon and Washington are already offering them. No
suits have yet been brought by advocates of church-state separation, but a
spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
called this the latest move to "do an end-run around the Supreme Court's
rulings on religion in the schools." Following are experts in education,
law and religion who can discuss the pros and cons of the trend:
**1. JAMES SKILLEN, president of the CENTER FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE: "Americans
United advocates public recognition only for religions that agree to keep
their 'free practice' private. That does injustice to religions whose
expression of faith includes the way they educate their children or serve
their neighbors with social services, etc. Parents should be free to
choose
the schools they want, and schools should be free to decide whether to
teach only 'about' religions or to advocate one or more religions as they
see fit. Justice will be done only when governments treat all such schools
in the same way, with the same funding and legal respect, recognizing that
each one fulfills the public purpose of education."
**2. DR. DEREK DAVIS, professor at BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: "Bible literacy
courses in America's secondary public schools are a welcome development.
The court has recognized that an education devoid of information about the
role of religion in history, art, music, literature and politics is an
inferior one. It has approved public schools to develop courses that
objectively examine religion in its many functions in society. Bible
literacy courses that are objective and neutral in their approach would be
legitimate courses. The problem is sorting through these materials to
discover which ones are objective versus those that have a hidden,
sectarian agenda. The latter should be unhesitatingly rejected."
**3. ANDY NORMAN, attorney at Chicago-based MAUCK & BAKER, LLC and a
member
of the Christian Legal Society: "I have published memoranda pertaining to
religious rights under the First Amendment from the following
perspectives:
students; teachers and administrators; curricula, class assignments and
activities; and holiday displays and programs; and pertaining to teaching
intelligent design in the public schools. As to teaching 'the Bible and
Its
Influence' in the public schools, Supreme Court precedent is clear that
such is permitted under the First Amendment if there is a legitimate,
secular purpose involved. Americans United for Separation of Church and
State is a one-issue group devoted to the promotion of atheism. They
promote an un- American agenda which is far outside of Supreme Court
precedent, current legal thought on the First Amendment religion clauses
and that of most Americans."
**4. ROBERT W. TUTTLE, professor of law at THE GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY
LAW SCHOOL: "Like most questions of constitutional law, the answers to
this
question will not come at an abstract level. Instead, the details of each
course will determine its legality. Will the curriculum be constructed in
a
way that avoids making claims for the truth of one faith, or religion in
general? Will school officials have adequate systems for training teachers
in presenting the material without making those claims, and for monitoring
teachers to safeguard against violations of the restrictions?"
**6. WILLIAM PROCTOR, religious scholar, former trial lawyer and military
judge, and editor of "The HCSB Light Speed Bible," would make a great
source to discuss the Bible Literacy Project and the ongoing controversy
surrounding the incorporation of the Bible into America's public school
curriculums. As a source, he can also discuss the ramifications of using
the Bible as a teaching tool in public schools, from a constitutional and
legal standpoint; the Bible's influence on literature, art, music and
rhetoric; and why introducing the Bible into public-school curriculums is
a
good thing.
**7. DR. PAUL G. IRWIN, president and CEO of the AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY,
is
available to discuss the value of Bible literacy courses and their history
in America and around the world. For 190 years, The American Bible Society
has been the preeminent authority on the history and teaching of the
Bible.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; article fails 10th A. test |
09 Feb 2006 11:50:28 AM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139493667.386954.39940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Copyright
Newswise copyrights the information and format of information on this
site. Newswise also protects the copyright of the source of each
article.
Journalists are granted permission to use the information for
background and/or as the source for an article. Other re-purposing or
redistribution of content on this site is not permitted without prior
authorization from Newswise.
See 'fair use'.
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517882/
ROUND-UP: BIBLE LITERACY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Three-hundred school districts reportedly are considering offering cour=
ses
in "bible literacy," using "The Bible and Its Influence" as its text, a=
nd
<snipped for brevity>
**7. DR. PAUL G. IRWIN, president and CEO of the AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY,
is
available to discuss the value of Bible literacy courses and their hist=
ory
in America and around the world. For 190 years, The American Bible Soci=
ety
has been the preeminent authority on the history and teaching of the
Bible.
The referenced article fails the 10th Amendment test. Until people
actually read what the Constitution says about our religious freedoms,
we're merely going to continue playing cat and mouse with corrupt,
anti-religious expression judges who unlawfully legislate absolute
church-state separation "laws" from the bench.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation =
of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members fr=
om
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Wor=
ds
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
=20
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; article fails 10th A. test |
09 Feb 2006 08:04:43 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139507428.304994.288780@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ouroboros rex wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139493667.386954.39940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Copyright
Newswise copyrights the information and format of information on this
site. Newswise also protects the copyright of the source of each
article.
Journalists are granted permission to use the information for
background and/or as the source for an article. Other re-purposing or
redistribution of content on this site is not permitted without prior
authorization from Newswise.
See 'fair use'.
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517882/
ROUND-UP: BIBLE LITERACY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Three-hundred school districts reportedly are considering offering
courses
in "bible literacy," using "The Bible and Its Influence" as its text,
and
<snipped for brevity>
**7. DR. PAUL G. IRWIN, president and CEO of the AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY,
is
available to discuss the value of Bible literacy courses and their
history
in America and around the world. For 190 years, The American Bible
Society
has been the preeminent authority on the history and teaching of the
Bible.
The referenced article fails the 10th Amendment test. Until people
actually read what the Constitution says about our religious freedoms,
we're merely going to continue playing cat and mouse with corrupt,
anti-religious expression judges who unlawfully legislate absolute
church-state separation "laws" from the bench.
rofl Yeah, no one's ever actually read the thing till now.
Same lying kook, different day.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; article fails 10th A. test |
09 Feb 2006 02:47:31 PM |
|
|
On 9 Feb 2006 09:50:28 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Until people
actually read what the Constitution says about our religious freedoms,
we're merely going to continue playing cat and mouse with corrupt,
anti-religious expression judges who unlawfully legislate absolute
church-state separation "laws" from the bench.
Freddieloon
The constitution says YOU can worship fresh piles of
***** if you care to.
The constitution says that GOVERNMENT cannot 'promote"
or "establish" religion.
The interpretation of those two words---"promote" and
"estabish" are subject to LEGAL interpretation.
The ONLY entity allowed that function is the USSC.
Judge Moore is a fucking loony----get that through your
head.
The notion that STATES can do what the Federal
constitution will NOT allow them to do is loony.
That's why you and Moore are two loonies in a pod.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; article fails 10th A. test |
09 Feb 2006 06:24:12 PM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
On 9 Feb 2006 09:50:28 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Until people
actually read what the Constitution says about our religious freedoms,
we're merely going to continue playing cat and mouse with corrupt,
anti-religious expression judges who unlawfully legislate absolute
church-state separation "laws" from the bench.
Freddieloon
The constitution says YOU can worship fresh piles of
***** if you care to.
The constitution says that GOVERNMENT cannot 'promote"
or "establish" religion.
The Constitution says no such thing. This is evidenced by the fact
that you never provide a reference to any particular amendment or
clause when you mention it. You only refer to the politically correct,
anti-religious expression interpretations of amendments and clauses.
The interpretation of those two words---"promote" and
"estabish" are subject to LEGAL interpretation.
Basic reading skills tell us that the establishment clause of the
federal BOR reasonably applies only to the federal Congress, not to the
state governments.
The ONLY entity allowed that function is the USSC.
Judge Moore is a fucking loony----get that through your
head.
There is no law, other than the bogus constitutional principal of
church-state separation which is unlawfully legislated from the bench,
that prevented Judge Moore from displaying the 10C.
The notion that STATES can do what the Federal
constitution will NOT allow them to do is loony.
You continue to ignore that the 1st and 10th work together to reserve
unique government powers for the states, powers that federal government
is prohibited from exercising.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
Justice Reed noted the checks and balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942
That's why you and Moore are two loonies in a pod.
Is Moore your best rebuttal to my points?
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; article fails 10th A. test |
09 Feb 2006 08:05:13 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139531052.297799.150120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
On 9 Feb 2006 09:50:28 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Until people
actually read what the Constitution says about our religious freedoms,
we're merely going to continue playing cat and mouse with corrupt,
anti-religious expression judges who unlawfully legislate absolute
church-state separation "laws" from the bench.
Freddieloon
The constitution says YOU can worship fresh piles of
***** if you care to.
The constitution says that GOVERNMENT cannot 'promote"
or "establish" religion.
The Constitution says no such thing. This is evidenced by the fact
that you never provide a reference to any particular amendment or
clause when you mention it.
roflmmfao
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; article fails 10th A. test |
10 Feb 2006 06:46:41 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The interpretation of those two words---"promote" and
"estabish" are subject to LEGAL interpretation.
Basic reading skills tell us that the establishment clause of the
federal BOR reasonably applies only to the federal Congress, not to the
state governments.
Basic legal analysis tells us otherwise.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; article fails 10th A. test |
09 Feb 2006 08:49:32 PM |
|
|
On 9 Feb 2006 16:24:12 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The constitution says YOU can worship fresh piles of
***** if you care to.
The constitution says that GOVERNMENT cannot 'promote"
or "establish" religion.
The Constitution says no such thing.
The constitution doesn't have to
There is no language in the constitution specifically
stating that laws curtailing unrestricted freedom of
speech are legal.
But freedom of speech has been curtailed over and over
and no language exists, nor does any amendment address
the issue.
The interpretation of those two words---"promote" and
"estabish" are subject to LEGAL interpretation.
Basic reading skills tell us that the establishment clause of the
federal BOR reasonably applies only to the federal Congress, not to the
state governments.
The Bill of Rights grants ALL citizens those
protections, you goofy
A state cannot abrogate what a federal constitution
guarantees.
The ONLY entity allowed that function is the USSC.
Judge Moore is a fucking loony----get that through your
head.
There is no law, other than the bogus constitutional principal of
church-state separation which is unlawfully legislated from the bench,
that prevented Judge Moore from displaying the 10C.
A court is a government institution
Government cannot promote religion.
The notion that STATES can do what the Federal
constitution will NOT allow them to do is loony.
You continue to ignore that the 1st and 10th work together to reserve
unique government powers for the states, powers that federal government
is prohibited from exercising.
No state power can lessen a national law.
That's why you and Moore are two loonies in a pod.
Is Moore your best rebuttal to my points?
You have no points, Freddie
The only way your "points" could possible be valid is
IF states were supreme over the federal constitution
They are not
No matter how many time you try and extend a "state
right" as predication for your arguments, it fails.
No state since the civil war settled the question, has
the power to do what the federal constituton forbids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; article fails 10th A. test |
09 Feb 2006 11:56:10 PM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
On 9 Feb 2006 16:24:12 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The constitution says YOU can worship fresh piles of
***** if you care to.
The constitution says that GOVERNMENT cannot 'promote"
or "establish" religion.
The Constitution says no such thing.
The constitution doesn't have to
There is no language in the constitution specifically
stating that laws curtailing unrestricted freedom of
speech are legal.
But freedom of speech has been curtailed over and over
and no language exists, nor does any amendment address
the issue.
The interpretation of those two words---"promote" and
"estabish" are subject to LEGAL interpretation.
Basic reading skills tell us that the establishment clause of the
federal BOR reasonably applies only to the federal Congress, not to the
state governments.
The Bill of Rights grants ALL citizens those
protections, you goofy
You're mixing apples and oranges. Dividing government powers between
federal and state governments like the 1st and 10th Amendments do is a
different legal issue from personal rights.
A state cannot abrogate what a federal constitution
guarantees.
Sigh. :^(
Just more vague references to the Constitution.
The ONLY entity allowed that function is the USSC.
Judge Moore is a fucking loony----get that through your
head.
There is no law, other than the bogus constitutional principal of
church-state separation which is unlawfully legislated from the bench,
that prevented Judge Moore from displaying the 10C.
A court is a government institution
and...
Government cannot promote religion.
Buy using the term "government" your are deliberately ignoring that the
Founding Fathers made major distinctions between the powers of the
federal and state governments. Not only is this evidenced by the
division of powers of the 1st and 10th Amendments but Jefferson also
noted the different duties of the federal and state governments:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
The notion that STATES can do what the Federal
constitution will NOT allow them to do is loony.
You continue to ignore that the 1st and 10th work together to reserve
unique government powers for the states, powers that federal government
is prohibited from exercising.
No state power can lessen a national law.
What national law? There is no national law dealing with religion.
You are ignoring that the 1st A. of the federal BOR prohibits federal
religous laws. You are getting the wires crossed with respect to
lawful laws and the unlawful decrees made by corrupt, anti-religious
expression judges who legislate bogus church-state separation laws from
the bench.
That's why you and Moore are two loonies in a pod.
Is Moore your best rebuttal to my points?
You have no points, Freddie
And you have your head in the sand.
The only way your "points" could possible be valid is
IF states were supreme over the federal constitution
Article 5 of the Constitution shows that the people, through their
representatives, have the final decision in what the Constitution says.
They are not
No matter how many time you try and extend a "state
right" as predication for your arguments, it fails.
You evidently abhor common sense interpretations of the Constitution.
No state since the civil war settled the question, has
the power to do what the federal constituton forbids.
The Civil War has nothing to do with this except in your fantasies.
Article 5 of the Constitution which gives the final authority in
Constitutional matters to the people is still alive and kicking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
10 Feb 2006 06:47:08 PM |
|
|
On 9 Feb 2006 21:56:10 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dividing government powers between
federal and state governments like the 1st and 10th Amendments do is a
different legal issue from personal rights.
The heirarchy of government always has the federal
government supreme.
You keep referring to "division" of government as if it
were something remarkable.
States can address certain laws, both civil and
criminal in such a manner as they see fit.
States cannot pass laws that conflict with Federal
laws, particularily when the federal law forbids a
certain behavior
The federal constititution forbids GOVERNMENT (that
means ANY government) entering in religious doctrine
(establishing)
States cannot pass laws, or do things that are directly
forbidden by a national constitution.
Buy using the term "government" your are deliberately ignoring that the
Founding Fathers made major distinctions between the powers of the
federal and state governments.
No, they did not freddie
The national government constittution governs ALL
people.
The states were allowed to keep certain areas of
influence and the BOR was a compromise to allay any
fears that a national government wouldn't do what the
English crown did. It "limited power".
One (1) of those powers limited was the official
sanction of religion.
It clearly said that "overnment", (executive,
legislative, or judicial) could not pass laws forcing
CITIZENS to accept a particular religion That concept
extended to ALL government because CITIZENS were
guaranteed that NO government could force religion on
them simply by majority vote.
No state since the civil war settled the question, has
the power to do what the federal constituton forbids.
The Civil War has nothing to do with this except in your fantasies.
What in ***** do you think the CIvil war was about,
Freddie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
10 Feb 2006 11:46:12 PM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
On 9 Feb 2006 21:56:10 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dividing government powers between
federal and state governments like the 1st and 10th Amendments do is a
different legal issue from personal rights.
The heirarchy of government always has the federal
government supreme.
You keep referring to "division" of government as if it
were something remarkable.
States can address certain laws, both civil and
criminal in such a manner as they see fit.
States cannot pass laws that conflict with Federal
laws, particularily when the federal law forbids a
certain behavior
The federal constititution forbids GOVERNMENT (that
means ANY government) entering in religious doctrine
(establishing)
States cannot pass laws, or do things that are directly
forbidden by a national constitution.
Buy using the term "government" your are deliberately ignoring that the
Founding Fathers made major distinctions between the powers of the
federal and state governments.
No, they did not freddie
They don't, just because you say they don't, right?
You stubbornly continue to ignore that Jefferson noted some major
distinctions between federal and state governments, including the
states being trusted with the care of our religious freedoms:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
Justice Reed likewise noted that 10th Amendment protects unique State
powers that the federal government does not have:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942
The national government constittution governs ALL
people.
You're sidstepping the issue. Of course the Constitution protects all
people.
The states were allowed to keep certain areas of
influence and the BOR was a compromise to allay any
fears that a national government wouldn't do what the
English crown did. It "limited power".
The 10th A. obviously didn't limit the powers of the States. The 10th
formally reserved for the States powers that they had had, such as the
power to legislate religion, before the States created federal
government and its Constitution.
One (1) of those powers limited was the official
sanction of religion.
The 1st A. of the federal BOR prohibited the federal Congress from
legislating religion. But when the 1st and 10th A. are compared it is
reasonable to conclude that Founding Fathers had different ideas for
the States, the States reserving for themselves the power to legislate
religion.
It clearly said that "overnment", (executive,
legislative, or judicial) could not pass laws forcing
CITIZENS to accept a particular religion That concept
extended to ALL government because CITIZENS were
guaranteed that NO government could force religion on
them simply by majority vote.
The States have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros
and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example, regardless if atheists, separationists, secular judges and the
liberal media are misleading the people to believe that such things are
unconstitutional.
No state since the civil war settled the question, has
the power to do what the federal constituton forbids.
Your vague references about what the Constitution does and doesn't do
don't amount to anything.
The Civil War has nothing to do with this except in your fantasies.
What in ***** do you think the CIvil war was about,
Freddie?
The Civil War was about states who ignored personal federal rights.
Again, contrary to your Civil War fantasies, Article 5 of the
Constitution shows that the people, not your "glorious," anti-religious
expression USSC Justices, are the final authority in deciding what the
Constitution says both before and after the Civil War.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
19 Feb 2006 07:28:06 AM |
|
|
'...If such things really do happen on this earth, you have to witness them
with your own eyes because no one will believe it otherwise or they will
prefer, out of laziness or a desire not to get involved, to respond with
indifference.
And yet, in the end, knowledge of the deepest abysses of the human psyche is
an absolute, vital necessity, for the path out of the lowest depths can only
lead upwards...'
Lucie Adelsberger (1895-1971 'Auschwitz A Doctor's Story' p50, Northeastern
University Press; Boston. 1995.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:46, Fredi FUBAR croaked:
The States have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros
and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example, regardless if atheists, separationists, secular judges and the
liberal media are misleading the people to believe that such things are
unconstitutional.
Wow! Look at that!
300 million people marching but the porcine Fredi FUBAR is only one of 41 in
step.
It's amazing how incredibly brilliant and authoritative little, gutless,
anonymous pissants like you are when your ma-ma and da-da are sleeping and
you use your sister's computer without permission.
Very few people would be pleased to know that one is in the company of Posse
Comitatus and Aryan Nations but I've learned to expect the wacky, the weird
and the emotionally depraved from you.
Are you going to get together with your very white and not very bright bosom
buddies and pal around and assassinate blacks, Jews, atheists, agnostics,
Roman Catholics, race traitors, secular judges and the liberal media?
Are you born to kill, Fredi FUBAR?
You remind me of a woman who commented to me [on UseNet] that her husband had
been thrown into prison for just about forever on a first offense.
I had never heard of her husband but I googled him and he was, indeed, one of
your fellow "true believers".
Wiki: On June 18, 1984, [Denver talk radio host Alan] Berg was gunned down in
the driveway of his home, allegedly by three members of The Order, a white
supremacist group. No one was ever convicted on murder charges, although
several were convicted of violating his civil rights.
When asked about the assassination, David Lane, a member of The Order who had
called Berg's KOA show, responded: "the only thing I have to say about Alan
Berg is, regardless of who did it, he hasn't mouthed his hate whitey
propaganda from his 50,000-watt Zionist pulpit for quite a few years."
Lane, the getaway driver, was not convicted of murder, but for violations of
Alan Berg's civil rights and racketeering. Lane's sentence was 40 years for
the racketeering charges and 150 years for the civil right violations. Lane
is considered a prisoner of war in the ZOG prison system by supremacists.
end: Wiki
So you're not alone in your "frigid rigid" belief structure but you should
also understand why your fellow traveler, George "I'm gutless just like Fredi
FUBAR" Bush43 signed into a law that "annoying" behavior by an anonymous
entity on the Internet can be pubished by two years of incarceration.
And when you and "The Order" take over and kill people who have been dirty,
rotten, hurt your feelings and told you your wacko and weird hallucinations
about the Constitution are proof positive that the industrial strength,
heavy-duty Roto-Rooter Model 3in1 was not powerful enough to pull your head
from your *****, you peed your panties and vowed that vengeance would be yours.
There is no gravity; that's Fredi FUBAR sucking.
You're just another mental defective, intellectual ***** who - posting
anonymously - doesn't have to take responsibility for what you say and you
can appear to be not as crazy as usual and no one knows when your 4-year-old
sister smacks the snot out of you for getting her computer semen stained from
your lust-driven re-actions to lynchings and assassination.
And your parents are mean and nasty just because they think you should move
out of their house even if you are only 37 years old.
Let's see, again, the list of people you're going to exterminate after your
Beer Hall Putsch:
atheists
separationists
secular judges
liberal media
I have no idea which brand of "separationists" you plan on murdering, there
are so many different brands, so many potential corpses for you to run your
fingers and hands through - such an endless parade of necrophelia and it is
all - every bit of it - for you.
Have you started killing small animals yet? That is generally one of the
first steps towards serial killings - even though these aren't really
murders, of course, it's just that you - as God - have the right and the
power - the federal power - to decide who should live and who should die.
Are you visiting Charles Manson's website daily? Would you like to be his
cellmate? Do you believe that that would be a holey experience?
Do you visualize yourself as a cuter Charles Manson? One who would be more
popular with young people but only young people who are religious, disdain
secularism, are conservative and are not separationists.
Did you work on the George W C Bush43 campaign? Except for the massive
stupidity, you two could be twins separated at birth by Dr Mengele. Have you
also had a true life experience such as Future Kommandant Karl Rove had at an
early age which turned him away from freedom and to the wacky wing of the
Republican Party Animals:
Ê Ê Ê "There was a little girl across the street who
was Catholic and found out I was for Nixon,
and she was avidly for Kennedy. She put me
down on the pavement and whaled on me
and gave me a bloody nose. I lost my first
political battle," he said.
You're a sickie; an annoying, cloying little anonymous
girl/boy/thingie/whatever.
Where are you hiding the dead animals?
Are you going to murder your sister and parents?
Your parole officer?
Your psychiatrist?
That oak tree that always looks at you suspiciously?
How about those radios and teevees that put those horrible rays into your
head even when you use two layers of aluminum foil - shiny side out?
And those horrible, pounding headaches that won't go away even when you fill
both ears with aspirin; and that terrible, persistent coughing that bothers
you even when you use Republican Suppositories thirty or forty times a day.
You might want to contemplate the 97% solution.
(Holmes was always /such/ a conservative.)
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------
Psychic Vampires - such as Fredi FUBAR -
cannot see their reflections in a mirror.
.
|
|
|
| User: "libertad" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
19 Feb 2006 12:11:09 PM |
|
|
Fred wrote,
"Basic reading skills tell us that the establishment clause of the
federal BOR reasonably applies only to the federal Congress, not to the
state governments."
Not if these state governments are taking federal money. At that point,
Congress is involved, and the 1st Amendment applies. That is why
citizens can bring suit in Federal courts: It is now a "case or
controversy" between a state and the feds, and federal courts get
jurisdiction.
[Reader: But if the states refuse the federal money, they still have to
pay federal taxes! Not fair!]
Yup. The Constitution gives Congress the power to levee taxes; if a
state wants to teach creationism or force students to recite the
Rosary, that's the price they have to pay.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
19 Feb 2006 11:02:19 PM |
|
|
On 19 Feb 2006 10:11:09 -0800, "libertad"
<rog999@comcast.net> wrote:
Fred wrote,
"Basic reading skills tell us that the establishment clause of the
federal BOR reasonably applies only to the federal Congress, not to the
state governments."
Not if these state governments are taking federal money. At that point,
Congress is involved, and the 1st Amendment applies. That is why
citizens can bring suit in Federal courts: It is now a "case or
controversy" between a state and the feds, and federal courts get
jurisdiction.
Basically, Citizens must have government permission to
sue them.
Whether states take federal money or not, no state can
abrogate what the national constitution guarantees.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
19 Feb 2006 02:56:22 PM |
|
|
libertad wrote:
Fred wrote,
"Basic reading skills tell us that the establishment clause of the
federal BOR reasonably applies only to the federal Congress, not to the
state governments."
Not if these state governments are taking federal money.
I agree with you only to the extent of what Jefferson wrote:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
It is not right, for example, to expect atheist taxpayers to help pay
for Bibles to be used in public school Bible classes.
At that point,
Congress is involved, and the 1st Amendment applies.
You ignore that the people are the masters of both Congress and the
Courts:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln (Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas) 1858
You ignore that it is the people who established the federal
governments and its Constitution in the first place and, by their
Article 5 powers, will do with THEIR money as they see fit.
That is why
citizens can bring suit in Federal courts: It is now a "case or
controversy" between a state and the feds, and federal courts get
jurisdiction.
[Reader: But if the states refuse the federal money, they still have to
pay federal taxes! Not fair!]
Yup. The Constitution gives Congress the power to levee taxes; if a
state wants to teach creationism or force students to recite the
Rosary, that's the price they have to pay.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
19 Feb 2006 03:18:07 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
libertad wrote:
Fred wrote,
"Basic reading skills tell us that the establishment clause of the
federal BOR reasonably applies only to the federal Congress, not to the
state governments."
Not if these state governments are taking federal money.
I agree with you only to the extent of what Jefferson wrote:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
It is not right, for example, to expect atheist taxpayers to help pay
for Bibles to be used in public school Bible classes.
Therefore there can be no public school Bible classes, so long as
there is a single atheist taxpayer in the country.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "libertad" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
19 Feb 2006 07:07:36 PM |
|
|
Fred wrote,
"I agree with you only to the extent of what Jefferson wrote:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545 "
Fallacy: Appeal to authority. Mr. Jefferson's opinions do not define US
law. Furthermore, Jefferson had no problem enforcing taxation when he
was President, so possibly he reconsidered this early flight of
rhetoric, written at the height of the Revolution.
"You ignore that the people are the masters of both Congress and the
Courts"
Not at all. If enough of us don't like the 1st Amendment, we can
abolish it.
"You ignore that it is the people who established the federal
governments and its Constitution in the first place and, by their
Article 5 powers, will do with THEIR money as they see fit."
.... and what they see fit to do with it is enforce the 1st Amendment.
I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm explaining why the 1st
Amendment applies to state public school systems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
19 Feb 2006 08:25:16 PM |
|
|
libertad wrote:
Fred wrote,
"I agree with you only to the extent of what Jefferson wrote:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545 "
Fallacy: Appeal to authority. Mr. Jefferson's opinions do not define US
law. Furthermore, Jefferson had no problem enforcing taxation when he
was President, so possibly he reconsidered this early flight of
rhetoric, written at the height of the Revolution.
"You ignore that the people are the masters of both Congress and the
Courts"
Not at all. If enough of us don't like the 1st Amendment, we can
abolish it.
You first said "not at all" and then you essentially agree with me in
principal anyway. Make up your mind.
"You ignore that it is the people who established the federal
governments and its Constitution in the first place and, by their
Article 5 powers, will do with THEIR money as they see fit."
... and what they see fit to do with it is enforce the 1st Amendment.
You are stubbornly ignoring that the constitutionally ignorant American
people are letting a secular minority get away with twisting the
meaning of the 1st and 14th Amendments to unconstitutionally stifle our
religious freedoms.
I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm explaining why the 1st
Amendment applies to state public school systems.
You're an enemy of the Constitution, seizing the opportunity provided
by widespread constitutional ignorance to lie about what the 1st really
means.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
19 Feb 2006 11:05:45 PM |
|
|
On 19 Feb 2006 12:56:22 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not right, for example, to expect atheist taxpayers to help pay
for Bibles to be used in public school Bible classes.
THey don't have to
Courses dealing with biblical text don't require
bibles.
The issue, however, is teaching religious origins of
man in science class.
You ignore that the people are the masters of both Congress and the
Courts:
THe people approved the constitution which set in
motion a "rule of law"
You ignore that it is the people who established the federal
governments and its Constitution in the first place
You claimed states did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "libertad" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
20 Feb 2006 02:26:36 PM |
|
|
Fred wrote,
"You first said "not at all" and then you essentially agree with me in
principal anyway. Make up your mind."
I meant, of course, that I am not ignoring the fact that The People are
the sovereigns of the nation.
"You are stubbornly ignoring that the constitutionally ignorant
American
people are letting a secular minority get away with twisting the
meaning of the 1st and 14th Amendments to unconstitutionally stifle our
religious freedoms."
Rant.
"You're an enemy of the Constitution, seizing the opportunity provided
by widespread constitutional ignorance to lie about what the 1st really
means."
More rant.
It is the will of The People that the Supreme Court decides what the
Constitution "really means". Not you.
laffs wrote,
"Whether states take federal money or not, no state can
abrogate what the national constitution guarantees."
That's true. But in the case of the establishment clause, it only
applies when an institution is taking federal money. For example, as
far as the feds are concerned, Bob Jones U can teach creationism and
start classes with Christian prayers because (as far as I know) it
takes no federal money .
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Freddie even know why the Civil war was fought? |
20 Feb 2006 03:30:13 PM |
|
|
libertad wrote:
Fred wrote,
"You first said "not at all" and then you essentially agree with me in
principal anyway. Make up your mind."
I meant, of course, that I am not ignoring the fact that The People are
the sovereigns of the nation.
"You are stubbornly ignoring that the constitutionally ignorant
American
people are letting a secular minority get away with twisting the
meaning of the 1st and 14th Amendments to unconstitutionally stifle our
religious freedoms."
Rant.
"You're an enemy of the Constitution, seizing the opportunity provided
by widespread constitutional ignorance to lie about what the 1st really
means."
More rant.
It is the will of The People that the Supreme Court decides what the
Constitution "really means". Not you.
Article 5 of the Constitution shows that the people, through their
representatives, and not the USSC, are the final authority as to what
the Constitution says. The basic reason that you are putting
Constitution-ignoring USSC Justices on the pedestal is because secular
Justices are telling you what you want to hear concerning
unconstitutional absolute church-state separation.
laffs wrote,
"Whether states take federal money or not, no state can
abrogate what the national constitution guarantees."
I don't want to hear your constitutional-sounding generalizations about
federal money. I want you to reference specific clauses and amendments
to substantiate your assertions about money.
That's true. But in the case of the establishment clause, it only
applies when an institution is taking federal money. For example, as
far as the feds are concerned, Bob Jones U can teach creationism and
start classes with Christian prayers because (as far as I know) it
takes no federal money .
You are evidently in denial that the establishment clause prohibits
only the federal Congress from legislating religion, not the state
governments. Indeed, corrupt majority Justices are literally ignoring
the 10th Amendment which was made to prevent Justices from making
unconstitutional inferences about the powers of the States:
"The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured
themselves against constructive powers." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
The constitutional wives' tale as to how the 14th applied the 1st's
prohibitions on the federal government's power to legislate religion to
the states is an example of an unconstitutional inference by a crooked
Court. Indeed, contrast the Court's strained interpretation of the
establishment clause with Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting
the Constitution:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; |
09 Feb 2006 01:46:27 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139493667.386954.39940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Copyright
Newswise copyrights the information and format of information on this
site. Newswise also protects the copyright of the source of each
article.
Journalists are granted permission to use the information for
background and/or as the source for an article. Other re-purposing or
redistribution of content on this site is not permitted without prior
authorization from Newswise.
See 'fair use'.
Why don't you see it, since you obviously missed that it is for
exerpts, not entire articles.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible Literacy in Public Schools; |
09 Feb 2006 08:06:36 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139514387.192280.265230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
ouroboros rex wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139493667.386954.39940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Copyright
Newswise copyrights the information and format of information on this
site. Newswise also protects the copyright of the source of each
article.
Journalists are granted permission to use the information for
background and/or as the source for an article. Other re-purposing or
redistribution of content on this site is not permitted without prior
authorization from Newswise.
See 'fair use'.
Why don't you see it, since you obviously missed that it is for
exerpts, not entire articles.
rofl Another republican who can't read!
Better check that link again, chief.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
